Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

saberline152 t1_j8eyiw6 wrote

what about more real actual trains, stop subsidizing things like aviation and start subsidizing rail?

252

ReturnedAndReported t1_j8f3nir wrote

Hyperloop is a ticket to nowhere. The bulk of Elon's wealth is in Tesla, which is in direct competition with public transport systems. Hyperloop in Vegas was a distraction and killed off a real and feasible public transport system. Now Vegas is stuck with a crummy monorail and a hole in the ground with a few Tesla's in it.

165

FewyLouie t1_j8fjno3 wrote

Eh sounds like other companies are doing this, so Elon can enjoy his exploding Teslas and Twitters all he wants.

19

VincentGrinn t1_j8frps4 wrote

if they stuck with the original plan for 'loops'(not hyperloop) like the ones they built in vegas

that being non vacuum, pods of ~12 people moving at a speed of 150 using linear induction motors, used over short distances from train stations to smaller stops. in tunnels built really quick and fairly cheap

that would have been useful, its basically a faster APM, which supplements public transport

hyperloops i doubt will ever be feasible though, that vacuum part is just a real issue

10

DomiLicknPaws t1_j8gi8hj wrote

I'm thinking The 'ol Tesla Trail was always an ingenuity example (and the state pandering to Tesla, honestly). We have something called Calici out here that makes drilling an underground like going through solid concrete, because Las Vegas was the bottom of a lake for some period of time.

As a local, kind of hoping that the urethra between the ends of our very large convention center area becomes the proof of concept for what we desperately need, rapid public transport to the urban areas. The Regional Transportation Commission does the best they can with busses, dedicated lanes, regional transfer stations, but it's still a city you can't exist in easily without a car.

3

CloserToTheStars t1_j8hu6qs wrote

Eu is not Amerika we already have trains. Plus you are not talking about hyperloop but about him building tunnels.

1

ReturnedAndReported t1_j8q4iv6 wrote

He promised hyperloop. He built tunnels.

You have great infrastructure. I've ridden Renfe and TrenItalia as well as many undergrounds in Europe. I dont see how this could possibly replace existing high speed infrastructure. New lines could potentially work to connect the Baltics and Scandinavia or other places that currently rely on ferries....but most of the cost comes from preparing the tunnels themselves. Lastly, existing designs would be far simpler to implement.

1

P4ndamonium t1_j8fpzy6 wrote

Elon doesn't have anything to do with the modern hyperloop. He drafted a white paper and openly invited companies to make it, but beyond that he has no involvement in terms of engineering, branding or finances.

I love to hate the guy like everyone else but let's atleast be accurate with our criticisms. In terms of engineering feasibility, hyperloop is solid. We'll see if it makes sense financially at scale but on paper, with our current understanding of material sciences it's legit.

−8

ReturnedAndReported t1_j8fq596 wrote

Not sure the engineering is solid. How fast can it stop?

9

VincentGrinn t1_j8fs88g wrote

theyre basically just maglev trains in a vaccum, so 1g acceleration/deceleration is entirely reasonable and safe so long as people are sitting, though hyperloop planned for 0.5g

though most maglev trains only do 0.25 accel and 0.3g deccel which is lame

−3

AcanthocephalaFit766 t1_j8ftncb wrote

a magical vacuum

7

VincentGrinn t1_j8fuihr wrote

whats so magical about it?

0

ReturnedAndReported t1_j8fvpvo wrote

How bad it sucks.

4

VincentGrinn t1_j8fz9d4 wrote

well yeah i mean the plans for hyperloop were an ideal distance of 1500km

which means its a 19,000km^3 partial vacuum chamber

that shit cant be easy and even if they did manage it somehow, i dont think its practical

yeah nvm its actually 19km^3 which isnt that unreasonable ONLY requiring 2500 of the most powerful vacuum pumps in the world, still stupid though

0

vitaminkombat t1_j8h1n4d wrote

Or follow the Asian approach and let rail companies profit from rent and advertisements at stations which they own.

Most of Asia's biggest rail companies only make a small fraction of their revenue through actual ticket sales.

1

saberline152 t1_j8j5yko wrote

that was how it was in the 19th century, there were some issues back then and they were nationalised

1

Riccma02 t1_j8g14nd wrote

Holy fuck, why won't this die. It a scam; it is literally the monorail salesman from the Simpsons.

139

Darkhorseman81 t1_j8h73xt wrote

Those Tube rail systems work better.

−1

Weltkaiser t1_j8ha305 wrote

You mean a metro?

6

Darkhorseman81 t1_j8hamw5 wrote

Nah. It's a glass tube with a mag Lev vehicle inside of it.

Half the price of normal high speed rail. Less chance of floods, weather, or wildlife getting in the tube and causing damage or delays.

A start up company in Texas was one of the best contenders making them. I was analysing studies on the materials they used.

0

-The_Blazer- t1_j8hsz00 wrote

> Nah. It's a glass tube with a mag Lev vehicle inside of it. > > > > Half the price of normal high speed rail

How is maglev, which is already more expensive than HSR, covered with an extremely long glass tube cheaper than HSR?

I'm fairly pro-maglev, but I don't see the point of pumping up the cost by covering it. In the urban areas where this would have some utility in shielding the populace from the 600 Km/h noise and wind you probably can't go very fast to begin with.

6

Weltkaiser t1_j8hdupl wrote

You're invested in window cleaning supplies or something? Cause that's almost as stupid as the Hyperloop in terms of maintenance and cost outweighing the benefits significantly.

3

EaZyMellow t1_j8hgyx3 wrote

Have you seen what engineers can overcome? Reducing maintenance on a magnetic device “can” be simple. It’s just hard.

−2

CloserToTheStars t1_j8hugk1 wrote

People like echo chambers. Just let the inventors invent. And they do so whatever Reddit thinks is bollocks anyway plus elon the devil is involved… so fighting a losing battle no matter what it is

−1

minusmode t1_j8emcxb wrote

I just find it so strange that governments are still devoting attention to this high-exergy transport method. Who is even benefiting from this at this point?

84

[deleted] t1_j8eu9r2 wrote

The benefit to throwing money and attention at this is that it pulls money away from regular trains. Keeping attention on things that will never get built prevents actual transportation systems from being built. And that means more driving, which benefits the oil and car industries.

66

FewyLouie t1_j8fjvrb wrote

But… you know this is in Europe, right, where there is an extensive train network already?

−1

OriginalCompetitive t1_j8grqit wrote

That’s an entertaining Reddit meme, but it’s absurd. Do you really think hyperloops are pulling any money or attention away from trains in the real world? In Europe?

−2

Olosta_ t1_j8h5rl6 wrote

Hyperloop companies are "supported" by the EU per the linked announcement. This is tax payer money that is not invested somewhere else, like trains.

4

CaptainChaos74 t1_j8feh26 wrote

> Who is even benefiting from this at this point?

The auto and aviation industries. Musk has admitted that basically the only reason for Hyperloop was to sabotage high speed rail in California. I imagine this consortium has similar aims. Deflect investment from where it would actually be effective at getting people out of the car or airplane.

20

RationalBeliever t1_j8fjp6p wrote

Source on Musk?

4

Reddit-runner t1_j8h1vbf wrote

There is non. This is only something anti-Musk stans cling to.

It literally is based on a screenshot of a twitter reaction on a half-sentence in one of his biographies, which at closer inspection has actually nothing to do with it.

Musk is a controversial figure to say the least. But the mental hoops some stans jump through to keep spewing their nonsense are astonishing.

Edit: Judging by the downvotes people really hate when facts like that are pointed out.

But you will be hard pressed to find any Anti-Musk stan who is actually willing to support his stand on this subject with sources. Wonder why...

The closest you will get to an argument is usually high-school grade name calling.

−9

funpen t1_j8fw1a8 wrote

Trains are fine. Enough with the hyper-loop BS. Its just a grift by the gas and car industry to make us have a fantasy that will never happen so that we will keep using cars and planes. They did that same when they told us to turn the faucet off when we brush our teeth or recycle plastic; that ended up being lies peddled by gas and oil to shift the blame of climate change on us individuals instead of holding the mega corporations accountable

40

HarbingerDe t1_j8g2eh3 wrote

Screw off with the hyperloop. Just. Build. A. Damn. Train. Holy. Fuck.

35

DazedWithCoffee t1_j8egp8p wrote

If r/futurology wants to retain any credibility long term, I would suggest adding a rule against Hyperloop. It’s been thoroughly debunked. If you want high speed transport, they have maglev. There is no practical benefit to vacuum travel, it’s bad all the way down.

30

_Mechaloth_ t1_j8fh9b2 wrote

The Shinkansen system in Japan is by far the best travel experience I’ve had. If I had to choose between a 3 hour flight and a 4 or 5 hour high-speed train, train every time.

11

DonQuixBalls t1_j8flzgk wrote

If the price was comparable, I'd be willing to more than double the time to avoid the whole experience of air travel.

11

Weltkaiser t1_j8haqpa wrote

High Speed trains are a reality. Hyperloops are a scam. Not comparable. What's your point?

1

_Mechaloth_ t1_j8hdxtr wrote

… that HSR is perfectly fine. No need for Hyperloop. Jesus fucking Christ, what point did you think I was trying to make?

2

Ballsahoy72 t1_j8fgfsq wrote

I’ll be dead and buried by the time this fkn hyperloop happens

13

DoerteEU t1_j8g4rbu wrote

Hope so, too. And therefore wish you a very long and happy life!

3

Sodium_Showercurtain t1_j8gr7xl wrote

This will probably get buried, but could someone explain or link an explanation as to why the hyperloop is a 'scam'?

5

[deleted] t1_j8gu64h wrote

Because it's taking the most expensive type of train and putting it in a vacuum tube. The vacuum tube at that scale is impossible.

And on top of that, the real reason it's a scam is that it's being sold as more affordable than regular high speed rail. It's a horrifically expensive thing built inside another horrifically expensive thing that probably can't work and then gets sold as something less expensive than the conventional option.

14

Sodium_Showercurtain t1_j8gynqp wrote

Thanks for the explanation. Like most things, it seems rather obvious once you've had the points laid out!

2

Reddit-runner t1_j8h2j8q wrote

While I also don't think any Hyperloop system can operate on a sensible financial basis, this "this vacuum tube is impossible" claims lack any base in reality.

Physically such a vacuum is absolutely possible.

But you always will get people who fall for the populist claim that the thermal expansion of such a long tube would destroy it/make it impossible.

In pipelines you work around this problem by having Omega-joints. In a Hyperloop this obviously doesn't work. But bellow-joints also exist.

You will find many "Hyperloop destroyed" videos online which colourfully point out the first part, but purposefully let out the second part with the solution.

0

Weltkaiser t1_j8hal4s wrote

Creating such a vacuum is not the issue. But keeping it stable over a long period of time without using vast amounts of energy is impossible. At least as long as materials have certain properties, maintenance is a thing and you apply real world physics. Why do you have to focus on that one metric for you proof btw. there are hundreds of scenarios that make this unviable other than the type of joints you're using.

3

Reddit-runner t1_j8hd4x9 wrote

>Why do you have to focus on that one metric for you proof btw. there are hundreds of scenarios that make this unviable other than the type of joints you're using.

Because as you have pointed out there are real engineering challenges you can talk about.

So why lie about a benign problem that already had a simple solution?

That's what I take issue with.

0

Weltkaiser t1_j8hguoe wrote

That one flaw in some videos you watched doesn't render the entire criticism invalid.

1

ZeenTex t1_j8h535t wrote

Part of the reason for digging up the hyperloop concept is that you can gain many of the advantages at near vacuum instead of full vacuum.

The concept seems feasible and might be commercially viable, and if it is, has the potential to significantly reduce flights within the continent.

It might not work out, or not be feasible yet, but I for one am happy were at least looking into it.

And while many here say instead we need to push high speed rail, we'll, look at the state high speed rail is in. While it may attain high speed, getting from Amsterdam to Italy or even Paris is all but fast.

1

-The_Blazer- t1_j8htjzl wrote

There are 3 aspect to this: need, technology, and capacity.

Hyperloop is basically a maglev, but much smaller, with life support, inside a tube, that must be evacuated from air.

In terms of need, the vacuum tube is not actually needed. We already know you can do 600 Km/h with maglev just fine and with technological advancements you could probably push that to 900 Km/h if you really, really wanted to and the electricity was cheap enough. (this causes goemtric issues with the track but that's another point, and also one hyperloop conveniently does not address)

In terms of technology, pumping a thouosands-Km-long tube to be even a partial vacuum is horrifically hard to do. In addition, the tube creates a bunch of additional hazards.

In terms of capacity, one of the advantages of trains over planes is that because they have a much higher capacity, they can actually do mass transit at scale instead of becoming saturated like airports often are (you know how you take the plane and you randomly have to wait 20 minutes on the taxiway? That). Hyperloop has even less capacity than a plane by comparison. Economics also mean that lower capacity = higher ticket prices.

All this for an even higher cost than maglev (since the tech is maglev with a vacuum tube), which is in turn more expensive still than regular high speed rail.

9

2old4thisshyte t1_j8hni0p wrote

Search for Adam Something on YouTube. He basically debunks the whole idea of hyperloops.

2

ryusoma t1_j8foi8p wrote

Shitstains whose only purpose is to leech at the teat of government and VC funding. Led by the shameful Canadian parasite that somehow keeps getting continued attention to stoke their agenda from idiot politicians and the media, Transpod.

4

Tanstos666 t1_j8hipyx wrote

Ah shit not again, the energy amount is huge, just to move 1 train in one direction 😰

2

Envenger t1_j8hqwrg wrote

7 mono-cycle companies have teamed to create a circus.

2

Kingstad t1_j8hzufh wrote

Our leaders are as fallible and useless as the rest of us at best

2

FuturologyBot t1_j8eb8te wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

Submission Statement

Hyperloop trains were a concept that seemed to be nearing reality several years ago and then faded away. Except they haven't. Several companies around the world seem to be moving forwards in developing the technology.

Will any of this result in a real-world application? It's interesting the EU is sponsoring this, and the focus is on the EU so much. It suggests the industry might think this is where progress is likely.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/111erdh/7_international_companies_have_teamed_with_the_eu/j8e68sk/

1

[deleted] t1_j8en7cv wrote

[removed]

1

Futurology-ModTeam t1_j8g59uw wrote

Hi, otas1. Thanks for contributing. However, your comment was removed from /r/Futurology.

> > No just no fuck off

> Rule 6 - Comments must be on topic, be of sufficient length, and contribute positively to the discussion.

Refer to the subreddit rules, the transparency wiki, or the domain blacklist for more information.

[Message the Mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Futurology&subject=Question regarding the removal of this comment by /u/otas1&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this comment if you feel this was in error.

2

Jyooooorb t1_j8gwp6w wrote

This is the stupidest shit.

1

Reasonably_Bee t1_j8i6oba wrote

I can't help wondering what would happen if all this money was invested in buses (both on-demand and scheduled to accommodate those in rural areas where it's arguably too expensive to have a regular schedule) and trains.

We have an ageing population globally, and given the delays/lack of scale /etc of autonomous shuttles and cars, there's going to be a whole lot of people prohibited from accessing in-person services and participating in daily life.

Hyperloop will not happen anytime soon, they are still in the R&D and partnerships phase by and large.

1

sp111kg t1_j8ip29t wrote

Why are people funding this? The hyperloop was just a ploy to kill high speed train so Elon could sell electric cars.

1

Merlin_Wycoff t1_j8kccyo wrote

Hyperloop is a literal pipe dream, just invest in rail for gods sake

1

So_spoke_the_wizard t1_j8g42e9 wrote

I guess now we know who's going to draft the ISO standard on hyperloops.

0

DublinCheezie t1_j8gme75 wrote

Yeah but can Elon get another couple billion out of taxpayers while killing the competition through corruption, favoritism, etc?

0

Reddit-runner t1_j8h2p9v wrote

Wait? You fell for the claim that Musk has anything to do with this?

He never invested a single dollar in Hyperloop (beyond some student competitions) and doesn't own any of the current companies.

You don't have to like Musk, but why fall for such silly lies?

2

Halbaras t1_j8himdp wrote

You guys realise we could still invest in building actual train infrastructure and still research and develop hyperloop technology right? Theoretically it would be by far the fastest transport technology, and an airline killer.

Even if it's still decades away, dismissing it completely is like saying 'why are we researching fusion, we should be building renewables which actually work' when we can in fact do both.

0

mhornberger t1_j8edu4w wrote

Since his name will come up, let's clarify that Elon Musk did not invent the idea of a vactrain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

That being said, I have no idea if the technology is there yet. And I don't think Thunderf00t is the last word on what will and won't work, in the larger scheme of things. Clarke's first law is relevant here:

>>When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

That YouTuber may not be elderly or a distinguished scientist, but someone saying something is impossible should not be taken as a blunt fact. Will we ever get vactrains? No idea. I hope so. Though I'm confident I won't see them deployed at any scale. And The Boring Co's Loop system is not a vactrain.

−2

sonofeark t1_j8f0wki wrote

Really bad take. He doesn't say it's impossible. He just points out it's not as easy and feasible as some people say it is. He outlines some of the issues with the technology and so far he was 100% correct

15

Reddit-runner t1_j8h3b9w wrote

Remember when he made a video how nonsensical it is to land a rocket? No?

That's because he took the video down. Silently.

His take on Hyperloop only highlights his financially induced hate boner against Musk.

How many times in the video does he point out the rust on the tube? Like 5 times? Light rust. On a non-humanrated test track.

Also he points out again and again the problem of thermal expansion and that omega joints obviously can't work. So Hyperloop can't work.

But he is a nuclear physicist. So the knows that bellow joints exists. He just chose to deliberately mislead his audience.

2

cronedog t1_j8fcnrt wrote

It's not impossible, just a crap idea. It's like the countless idiots that want to use dehumidifiers to generate water from air for drinking purposes. It's not impossible, just a terrible idea that's way less efficient than all currently used ideas.

12

Positer t1_j8so3mi wrote

>countless idiots that want to use dehumidifiers to generate water from air for drinking purposes

​

You mean like the idiot professor who is one of the most highly cited professors in the world, and has won the 2020 royal society Chemistry award for exactly that invention?

https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/news/omar-yaghi-receives-2020-royal-society-chemistry-award

Get off youtube and watching thundermoron. It's not a serious source of science.

1

mhornberger t1_j8fgn8a wrote

> just a terrible idea that's way less efficient than all currently used ideas.

There are multiple metrics of efficiency. It certainly doesn't compete with mains water. But not all areas have available or reliable mains water. And for water being trucked in, some areas are reliant on corrupt 'water mafias.' Multiple militaries have bought products from various companies in this space. Sure, we can just go with the idea that all of these people, even DARPA, are just really stupid. Or maybe it does suit some use cases. For civilian use, it is priced to compete with bottled water, not with mains water.

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2021/04/water-from-fresh-air/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-watergen-helping-arizona-native-americans-make-water-from-air/

>>Watergen has deployed its machines in over 60 countries, both developing countries lacking water infrastructure, such as India and Uzbekistan, and in areas of developed countries suffering from drought, such as California.

−2

cronedog t1_j8fjnsb wrote

> Sure, we can just go with the idea that all of these people, even DARPA, are just really stupid.

You think no funded research initiatives are stupid? Look at how many hundreds of millions were wasted on solar roadways. Pure science research has some benefit in itself, that doesn't mean the projects will be viable.

​

There are reasons these projects keep failing. Just believe hard enough and the self filling water bottle will be a good idea....:S

​

​

​

The first link doesn't paint all that rosy a picture of the idea. 1 liter of fuel for 5 liters of water.

Darpa and Berkely are just research projects. The article ends with the dude wondering if research will ever make them worthwhile.

​

and for the second link

>

The Watergen GEN-M generators produce up to 211 gallons (800 liters) of purified drinking water per day, depending on climate conditions. The Israeli startup will monitor the project’s effectiveness in the Hard Rock Community and evaluate whether it can be replicated elsewhere within the Navajo Nation.

What are the results? How effective is it to track in big machines and hundreds of gallons of fuel? Why can they ship hundreds of gallons of fuel to waste but can't just bring water from surrounding areas?

​

Corrupt water mafias can take control of water convoys but not giant stationary generators or the massive amount of fuel required to run the generators?

6

mhornberger t1_j8fkfk4 wrote

> Look at how many hundreds of millions were wasted on solar roadways.

Hundreds of millions? Where are you getting that number from? Even $100 million seems like it would be off by a factor of 10-20x.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

And these articles aren't about R&D projects, but about products already on the market. DARPA is also doing R&D, but that's just to push the industry forward, enable more improvement. These aren't "projects that keep failing," rather they're products that keep getting purchased and installed.

>Why can they ship hundreds of gallons of fuel to waste but can't just bring water from surrounding areas?

Or their electrical grid might be more robust than the water mains system. Or they may be using solar. Any number of reasons. That you personally think there are better options doesn't mean those buying them share your assessment. Is it really so impossible that some of these people are doing their due diligence before making the purchase decision?

0

cronedog t1_j8fo8dp wrote

>Hundreds of millions? Where are you getting that number from? Even $100 million seems like it would be off by a factor of 10-20x.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I didn't just mean solar roadways inc, the US company. I was referring to all the projects around the world where they try to stick solar panels on roadways.

​

>Or their electrical grid might be more robust than the water mains system. Or they may be using solar. Any number of reasons. That you personally think there are better options doesn't mean those buying them share your assessment. Is it really so impossible that some of these people are doing their due diligence before making the purchase decision?

Yes. If the people in charge had an understanding of physics they wouldn't waste their money. I don't know why people keep falling for theranos levels of con-artistry but they do.

2

Weltkaiser t1_j8hb43b wrote

As you refuse to use your own brain:

The more arid a region is, the less available free water there is in the air. If you let a dehumidifier run in the desert it will harvest pretty much nothing. Which makes this concept even less viable for the scenarios you are suggesting. And yes, also DARPA has high numbers of morons that buy into every snake oil working for them.

1

Riccma02 t1_j8g1rz2 wrote

>Since his name will come up, let's clarify that Elon Musk did not invent the idea of a vactrain.

No, some victorian era crackpot kook invented it. 150 years ago, all of these gadget-bahns were invented by some top-hatted jackass. He took all of his profits, from sending children to die in the mills, and put it all on his vision for the future. Then all of those ideas failed spectacularly and were left in the dustbin to die, until now; when the marvelous Mr. Musk comes along and decides to rebrand them as the future. Novelty is a brain poison.

5

lughnasadh OP t1_j8ehey4 wrote

>> I don't think Thunderf00t is the last word on what will and won't work

My take on Youtube debunkers is that if a person thinks a Youtuber is the last word on every single area of human knowledge & expertise, above and beyond everyone else in the field, perhaps a 101 course in critical thinking might be an idea.

A Chinese company is approaching the hyperloop idea with a partial vacuum and maglev trains. This seems an approach that might work. Total vacuums seem impractical to implement, but partial vacuums are much easier to engineer.

2

allenout t1_j8ez07g wrote

Maglev trains already exist though. Why do they need an expensive metal cage around them?

8

[deleted] t1_j8f1po5 wrote

Because maglevs aren't expensive enough. Got to develop the most expensive train possible.

12

remek t1_j8jvopm wrote

I am no expert on the topic nor do I defend Hyperloop but having a train going over 500km/h not enclosed in a metal tube makes me feel very uncomfortable for some reason. Perhaps if thing is supposed to go this fast I'd rather have it enclosed (or 10km above my head)

1

allenout t1_j8lw4g0 wrote

The point of the tube isn't protection, it is there to produce a vacuum.

1

humanitarianWarlord t1_j8ejwjc wrote

Normally I would agree but thunderf00ts video was pretty compelling and focused specifically on musks version of a hyperloop. Musks loop would never have worked and was frankly kind of insane from a safety and engineering point of view.

6

lughnasadh OP t1_j8em027 wrote

>>Musks loop

RIP to Musk's Hyperloop, its the past & its best to forget about it, and move on.

I'm especially intrigued by the Polish company Nevomo that is one of these 7. Their approach is mag lev trains on existing rail tracks, they say could achieve speeds of 550 kph (340 mph).

0

mhornberger t1_j8ei4xr wrote

>Total vacuums seem impractical to implement, but partial vacuums are much easier to engineer.

Yes, people were always reading too much into the 'vac' part. It was always reduced air pressure, not hard vacuum on par with intergalactic space. The analysis is only slightly more substantive than the practice of forming fiercely-held opinions of books based just on their title, such as Dawkins' Selfish Gene or Krauss' A Universe From Nothing.

−1

allenout t1_j8ezuc6 wrote

It's worth mentioning that the partial vacuum you are describing is actually 99% vacuum. Getting a true vacuum is impossible.

5

mhornberger t1_j8f1oif wrote

> actually 99% vacuum

I'm not sure what "99% vacuum" means in technical terms.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/hyperloop/

>>it is instead proposed that the Hyperloop tube operate at very low pressure: 100 Pascals, about 1/6 the pressure of the atmosphere of Mars [1]. This pressure is one thousand times less than atmospheric pressure at sea level and as a result air resistance is drastically decreased. After initial acceleration, Hyperloop pods can therefore mostly glide without applying any thrust until the deceleration at the end of the journey.

But I've read other proposals with higher, or variable, levels of pressure in the tubes.

https://hyperloopconnected.org/2019/02/variable-tube-pressure-a-new-concept/

The point was never to champion Musk's specific proposal. He didn't invent the idea of vactrains, and his white paper is just one paper.

2

allenout t1_j8g025f wrote

"Let's take expensive maglev and make it more expensive and dangerous by putting a tube around it so we came make a vacuum, but then let's not actually make a vacuum because that's only on 1 white paper".

3

king5327 t1_j8g3a59 wrote

A tunnel is a terrible place to have a train, on account of needing enough space around it to pass the air, else you enjoy a pressure bubble at the front of the train. But increasing the cross section of a vacuum tube is a non-negligible nerf to the effectiveness of the vacuum pumps, causing similar drag anyway.

This leads me to believe that even if the technology works perfectly, the numbers alone won't allow for the performance that was promised, unless at extraordinary expense in running the pumps.

Edit: Also, if there are any magnets at all on the car, or along the length of the tunnel, induction is going to be a surprise drag.

2

lughnasadh OP t1_j8e68sk wrote

Submission Statement

Hyperloop trains were a concept that seemed to be nearing reality several years ago and then faded away. Except they haven't. Several companies around the world seem to be moving forwards in developing the technology.

Will any of this result in a real-world application? It's interesting the EU is sponsoring this, and the focus is on the EU so much. It suggests the industry might think this is where progress is likely.

−5

Thegoodthebadandaman t1_j8h5mk6 wrote

Kind of sad to see that the EU is investing into this grift, was under the impression that those guys normally had a pretty level head on matters like this.

2

Talldarkn67 t1_j8erutw wrote

I’d rather see governments spend money on getting this working than to continue implementing technology from the 60s(HSR). It’s about time the world moved forward with a new idea for transportation, rather than taking the china approach of copy pasting to create a massive boondoggle like they did with HSR there.

−18

[deleted] t1_j8euhmo wrote

Instead of building high speed rail, a technology that we know works, your solution is to build something even more expensive and impractical.

20

Talldarkn67 t1_j8ez6xi wrote

You forgot potentially much faster, better for the environment a leap forward in technology. Yeah, that would suck. Much better to keep copy pasting….🤡

−15

JCPRuckus t1_j8fk3zl wrote

>... potentially

>Yeah, that would suck.

Yes, if it failed to live up to the potential that would suck. Which is an eventuality that you are clearly not accounting for adequately.

10

Talldarkn67 t1_j8flkxk wrote

You sound like the people in the 1800s that thought if you traveled faster than 100mph you’d go crazy. We currently live in a boring version of what the world used to be. People used to get excited about new technology and didn’t care what it took to make real progress and move humanity forward. Now, we have people like you who are focused on replicating what is, rather than thinking about what could be. We seem to be devolving as a species. You’re a perfect example of that. As are all the rest of your downvoting friends.

Good thing the Japanese didn’t think like you in 1964 or we wouldn’t have HSR either….

−9

JCPRuckus t1_j8fpd85 wrote

>You sound like the people in the 1800s that thought if you traveled faster than 100mph you’d go crazy.

I didn't say anything remotely like that. And by leading off with a total misrepresentation of what I said all you've done is demonstrate exactly how bad faith your position is.

All I said is that it well might fail to be better than HSR (either in absolute terms or for the money) and be a waste of money.

Therefore, until such time as we've actually built some small scale projects that show its better, we should continue building technologies that are known quantities.

>We currently live in a boring version of what the world used to be. People used to get excited about new technology and didn’t care what it took to make real progress and move humanity forward. Now, we have people like you who are focused on replicating what is, rather than thinking about what could be.

Again, not even remotely like anything I said. We don't "live in a boring version of what the world used to be". We live in a world where lots of those ideas people had turned out to be impractical and unworkable, so they never got built... I'm all for moonshots. I'm just also for admitting that most moonshot ideas either fail completely, or vastly underdeliver. Which is why they are "moonshots" and not "Plan A".

>We seem to be devolving as a species. You’re a perfect example of that. As are all the rest of your downvoting friends.

You can't even have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with you. You have no room to claim anyone else is "devolved".

>Good thing the Japanese didn’t think like you in 1964 or we wouldn’t have HSR either….

Again, I said a few sentences to you. I don't have to answer for these positions that you have dreamt up for me based on 2 or 3 sentences.

8

Talldarkn67 t1_j8fvac4 wrote

“All I said was that we well might fail”. That sentence let me know how you think. People that think like that fail immediately since they don’t want to even try. In fact that type of thinking is lower than failure, since failure actually involves trying first.

I’m glad they are trying to build hyperloop. Whether it fails or not. At least we are trying something new. Not rehashing the accomplishments of previous generations.

0

Maurauderr t1_j8fxr5i wrote

What about the maglev technology? Yes it is a bit older but we are currently seeing a major improvement in the way that it is built. The big problem with hyperloop is that just a shift in tectonic plates or one lose screw could ruin the entire system. It also need unreal amounts of energy to function and we currently have that. Also, if the pod has just one flaw in design or a tiny hole, it can endanger everybody in the pod and maybe the few pods behind it.

That said, I like the idea of hyperloop itself and the fact that we are doing research into it. The thing is that right now we have more pressing issues and that research should not be our main priority. Our main priority should be to get down in our greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible and technologies like HSR and Maglev should be our focus + a large reduction in cars, etc. The hyperloop will be a fun project for after we have completed our most pressing issues.

Also, why not spend more money on Maglev research? It has the potential to rival air travel much sooner than hyperloop. Just purely the fact that Japan manged to reach 600km/h shows that. If we put more money into that we might reach even higher speeds.

Also, if you go up in the comments a bit, you will find that the idea of vac trains is quite old already so also nothing new.

5

Talldarkn67 t1_j8g72t7 wrote

The idea where building HSR everywhere will stop people from buying/driving cars, or using existing modes of transportation. Is not connected to reality. At least not in my experience of seeing HSR being built everywhere.

Take China for example. They have built the most extensive HSR network in the world. They go almost anywhere in China. Has it stopped people there from buying or driving cars? No, in fact China is the worlds largest car market. They literally buy more cars than any other country. I lived there for tens years and trust me, everyone that can afford to buy a car does. I had to drive from Suzhou to Shanghai many, many times for work. There is an HSR between the two but there was always traffic both ways. The highways were full of people driving instead of taking the HSR. Not because it’s cheaper or faster but because it’s more comfortable and convenient than HSR. Not to mention the fact that so few people use all the HSR they’ve built, that it loses hundreds of billions per year. It’s such a boondoggle that multiple heads of HSR in China have committed suicide. For longer trips most people prefer to take a plane and for shorter trips they more often than not drive. Also, they still have normal and cheaper trains which poorer locals usually take because they can’t afford to take the HSR.

That’s what I saw in China. You can confirm it all with casual research on the topic. I don’t think building HSR everywhere is the solution people think it is. At least that has not been the case for China. I doubt it would be much different elsewhere.

1

Maurauderr t1_j8gr6oy wrote

I never claimed that it would stop it. I claimed that it would reduce it, which it does. Something like induced demand on street just brings more people to take the car and does nothing against congestion etc. Giving a good rail system encourages people to take the train.

Also, in regard to your experience in China I did some digging and found this:

-2,1 billion rail passengers passengers (2013), growth of 5.5% per year between 2000 and 2013

-Bejing-Tianjin HSR: 16 million in first year (2008)

-Fares vary between 0.045$/passenger km for 200-250km/h and 0.77$/per passenger km for 300-350km/h (which actually is more expensive than Germany (0.34$/p.km) and France (0.24-0.31$/p.km) so the argument "it is only used by the poor kinda falls short)

-Rail passenger amount grew by 7.6% annually between 2008 & 2013

  • The two busiest lines carried 100 million each in 2014 -rail trips are almost double the amount than air trips in 2013

-for short trips (<300km) cars or busses are competitive because HSR stations are a decent way away from the town centre

  • Rail traffic grew by 39% between 2008 and 2014 while conventional traffic grew by 1.5%

-According to a survey from May 2013 the income range on the Changchun-Jilin line was at about 4,300$/m (70% reported an income of below 5,000$/m), Tianjin-Jinan between 6,700$ and 4,500$/m (50%reported an income of less than 5000$/m) so again.

  • The most profitable route (Shanghai-Beijing) brought in 1 billion$ in revenue in 2015

-Most people are actually not able to afford HSR in China (at least were in 2015)

-for trips of 500km or less air companies were forced to lower Fares or cancel flights because of the HSR

  • total income in 2021 was about 705 million USD (56.5% lower than 2019)

-Due to Covid 19 and strict lock downs profits plummeted 159% to a loss of 4.4 billion USD

-The HSR system has a total of 1.9 billion passengers annually.

For the sake of the argument I only focused myself on HSR and passenger travel in comparison.

References https://www.statista.com/topics/7534/high-speed-rail-in-china/#topicOverview

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-high-speed-rail-development-worldwide

http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/EAP/China/high_speed-rail-%20in-china-en.pdf

Edit: When you said only poorer people use the HSR you were probably referring to the conventional rail (200-250km/h) and not 300-350km/h

3

JCPRuckus t1_j8g19vp wrote

>“All I said was that we well might fail”. That sentence let me know how you think. People that think like that fail immediately since they don’t want to even try. In fact that type of thinking is lower than failure, since failure actually involves trying first.

Except I didn't say we shouldn't try. I ignoring things that we know work in the meantime doesn't make any sense.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

>In fact that type of thinking is lower than failure, since failure actually involves trying first.

Get over yourself. You can't even read and reply to what I actually say. You aren't superior to anyone.

>I’m glad they are trying to build hyperloop. Whether it fails or not. At least we are trying something new.

I never said they shouldn't. I said that forgoing HSR on the hope that maybe Hyperloop will be feasible, much less better, one day is stupid.

>Not rehashing the accomplishments of previous generations.

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between "trying" something and "banking on" it. It's not bad to have things that actually work while you're trying to do new things.

1